Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knuteson (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 23 November 2019 (Commitment to follow COI rules.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Rich Barton
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Bending Spoons
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Bound (2023 film)
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:CoBank
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Farm Credit Council
    Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Mark Felton
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur)
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Ronnie Liang
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of people from Darwin
    Talk:List of University of Queensland people
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:List of New School people
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Profire Energy
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Grey Knight
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Up TV
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zillow
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Iridium Communications

    Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

    Tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rossy Evelin Lima

    This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

    Tagged as likely COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drsammyjohnson

    Looks like long-standing paid editor.

    • Creffpublic Would you be willing to help me with this? I can't get any feedback on the WOW article or the JR article. I think the WOW article read well and has good sources. It's factually correct. I didn't add a ton of new information - just restructured it. I'm not seeing the puffery portions of it. I suppose listing the television stations could be construed as promotion but I see this regularly across Wiki so I'm confused. I do think after going back and looking it over that the Jordan Roth article did sound promotional so I removed a ton of info. I can't get any feedback from the tagger - do you have time to help? I have requested help on the talk pages and received no response. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson[reply]
    • C0nL1ght Drive-by tagging of articles without even taking the time to look at the contributions or start talk page discussions is not very helpful. e.g. I did not contribute to the Charlie Fink page. I am reviewing the Wikipedia Manual of Style, NPOV, and Loaded Language pages again so I can go back through and make updates as needed. Any other helpful information would be appreciated.Drsammyjohnson (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Drsammyjohnson[reply]
    • C0nL1ghtCan you let me know what specifically isn't helpful in this article? I think my work elevated the page significantly from the earlier version and everything was sourced. What sources are poor? What information is not verifiable? I spent many hours researching and writing this article. If my tone is off I would appreciate guidance in making it better vs. just a callout so that I can make sure to 1)not to do it in my future work and 2)make relevant edits to past work. Also, I believe it's quite common for editors to write articles in the same field. How many WikiEditors only edit Manga pages? Or the pages of public companies? Or political pages? I think most editors have a preferred genre. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson[reply]
    • This is how I write. But I am happy to go back through and make updates where edits could be seen as promotional and circle back around to see if the edits are more in line with what the community is looking for. I am not paid, I sit down and research and write - adding what I perceive to be a complete picture of a notable person's history. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson[reply]
    • Apologies, "Dr. Sam Johnson" (as you identify yourself on your userpage), unfortunately I don't believe you are being honest or forthcoming with disclosing your WP:COI if not WP:PAID based on your pattern of editing. You also wrote in the edit summary of this diff [1] at Draft:Joe Laresca, "This draft has been declined however, I still wish to raise the issue of notability with this individual as it does not seem that basic notability has been established." You are saying you have a relationship with this individual, in which case you are not properly disclosing your COI. And Mr. Laresca also happens to be the "director of marketing and social media" for Ryan Serhant, whose page you worked on extensively. C0nL1ght (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • C0nL1ght That's a big leap. That does not indicate I know him. I know OF the subject of that article because of the research I did for the RS page. During my research I saw that there was a draft for JL - so I researched him as well and found he is obviously not notable enough to have one. That is exactly what I was supposed to do in a situation like that. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson[reply]
    I saw a tag placed on John Crist (comedian) and it didn't look substantiated to me (no clear issues on page, no discussion on talk). I now see there is a broader discussion taking place here. I'm not seeing evidence of paid editing. The tags seem like drive-by tags. I'm going to check over more of these articles and remove any tags that don't look substantiated. Marquardtika (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi all. I have made some major edits to several of the pages listed without any input from the tagger (although requested). Other editors have looked over pages and determined several of them to be mistagged. A second set of eyes on some of them would be very helpful especially the Jordan Roth and WOW pages - both of which have subjectivity tags - which is harder for me to correct and something I think I need to work on. I have made requests on the talk pages of those articles. Any constructive help is appreciated. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson[reply]

    National Informatics Centre

    The IP is evidently a contractor the NIC has hired to puff up their Wikipedia page, per their contributions and this edit summary. The article as a whole has always had an issue with promotional text, but one of the major contributors on that front is blocked for a username violation and I'm not so sure about a third. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 06:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has been traced to the National Informatics Centre using WHOIS. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Bates (politician)

    Repeatedly removing sourced material. Not engaging in discussion. The article probably needs more eyes on it. [2][3][4][5]OrionTribute (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Still ongoing. [6] OrionTribute (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Entertainment One

    accounts

    This user's only edits over a long-term period have been to articles related to Entertainment One. Edits they have made have sometimes contained PR-like wording. I had given them a COI warning, but they have not replied. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some more IPs that have recently begun editing the articles related to Entertainment One which, incidentally, have become something of a walled garden.
    Also, I requested page protection for Entertainment One due to aggressive and disruptive editing there. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged the content of several articles with Entertainment One, and sorted the list so that the redirect structure is more visible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)c[reply]
    Entertainement One and Entertainment One Films have been semi-protected for two weeks after requests at RFPP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AmericanAir88 I noticed that too. I think the Ghana IPs are VPNs, since ST47 blocked 154.160.26.23 based on long term abuse, and that LTA seems to be elsewhere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: I agree. 174.88.147.139 is registered to Bell Canada, which could be evidence that this is the true location of the IPs instead of a VPN Ghana. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AmericanAir88: could be. This is a company with a lot of resources and international subsidiaries, so I imagine the promotional editing could be coming from any places. I think it is going to be OK now with all the redirects back to the main substantial articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: I agree, if they come back though. Some blocking/investigation may have to occur. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed a request for proxy check at WP:WPOP for the Ghana IPs on November 11, but it hasn't been serviced yet ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Evangelists (band)

    Mr. McColgan appears to be the lead singer of the band "The Evangelists". He has a wikipedia account by the name of Eamonn Evangelists. He has been warned as far as 10 years before the creation of the COIN. He continues to ignore warnings. I believe he has not disclosed his COI. - AH (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First time seeing all the COI articles. I’ll cease all activities on this page. Thanks. Eamonn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamonn evangelists (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Freeman (filmmaker)

    User is a SPI who adds promotional content, frequently unreferenced or inadequately referenced, to this article alone. The user has never responded to multiple requests for COI disclosure This week the user has re-added promotional glurge that I deleted. A very helpful IP contributor worked the article over yesterday, but enough is enough with the COI and the utter obliviousness to usertalk (while I realize that my messages have been templated, it doesn't appear that taking any more time would have made any difference since it isn't clear that the user realizes they have a talk page). Thanks for any further help. (I am notifying the user as soon as I publish this.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (insert thumbs-up emoji here)! Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's edited past multiple COI warnings, so I've just blocked the account as promotional. Perhaps they can interact on their talk page - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Editing under IP 209.6.159.41 now; has added more content to the Freeman article. This IP has edited an article about an actress in one of Freeman's films whose article Patrickoneil75 has also edited. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis E. Sola

    Louis Sola is a previously deleted article, with a review clarifying deletion. His AfC draft has also been rejected twice, but since has been slowly cut by IPs to remove mentions of Sola to hide that fact. The current page is extensive, although the sources don't seem to back up his notability. Gardadelamana and Woolmist appear to be SPAs while SiriusFireRing was the one who moved the page from draftspace to mainspace. Seems like a relatively complex COI attempt to get Sola's page created. 98.219.223.182 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed for deletion. Will AfD if that fails.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Cuningham

    This article is about a county-level politician. My first impression of it was that it seemed quite promotional. But rather than being primarily written by a SPA as these bios usually are, this one has substantial contributions by long-term editors as well as a many edits by one or more IPs who seems to agree the article is one-sided - but their edits clearly show a bias against the subject. There has been edit-warring and protection applied. I think the article could use some more eyes to look at the content from a neutral perspective, if anyone wants to work on this. MB 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure this belongs At COIN, as you have not named specific COI issues. However it does belong somewhere, as the article on this local politician ran to 48KB! I trimmed 10KB that was all about the local government and how well it was doing. The article does indeed seem slanted, given the large and detailed specific coverage it gives to such a run of the mill politician.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it "bias" to know what Cunningham has actually done and the conditions he has created in the Lehigh Valley? The vast traffic jams he has helped create, with thousands of big rigs spilling out of warehouses built on his watch, are so unpopular locally that Cunningham takes to the local papers regularly to belittle his many critics. Why is it biased to wish to include that information or cite Cunningham's own words on the subject? No, the real bias is coming from that obvious flack Hunter Kahn, who has been fluffing Cunningham for years. That's why his page has grown like a cancer; it's all Hunter Kahn's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.251 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was mentioned by name, I felt compelled to weigh in. LOL I've worked on this article in the past, and since I watchlist most articles I've worked on, I saw and made efforts to stop what I saw as clearly biased edits by the aforementioned IP editor in recent weeks/months. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 12 years; my contributions can be found here and here. I'm also from Pennsylvania and I occasionally edit about local or state topics (I can cite a multitude of examples if need be), and even more often I sometimes like to just take a topic at random and write about it. Often when I edit, I like to focus on a single article, gather as many details as I can, make it as comprehensive as possible, then move on. (My edit history from the last few months alone show that.) I did so in the case of this Cunningham article, and as a result, it's possible I may have gone a bit overboard. If so, I welcome good faith edits from other editors, like the ones ThatMontrealIP made above, even if I don't agree with all of the changes. — Hunter Kahn 12:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a content dispute rather than COI. I see Hunter Kahn doing good faith editing but perhaps adding way too much detail, leading to the article being promotional. I also see the IP being pointy and less than helpful in the dialogue. Perhaps you two could just leave the article alone and go your separate ways? there are five million articles available to edit; all you have to do is unwach this one and move along. The COI claims are not relevant here, unless someone can point to specific evidence of COI editing. The real issue here is the neutrality of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in light of Hunter Kahn's willingness to accept the good faith edits of other editors, per WP:OWN, this article could use more eyes and edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more than happy to accept the suggestion of ThatMontrealIP. I honestly haven't substantially edited the article in a while anyway; my primary concern was preventing what I perceived to be vandalism. Thanks for your efforts here ThatMontrealIP! — Hunter Kahn 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interest as you demonstrated was in eliminating every single bit of information and every citation that cast Cunningham in anything but a positive light. You didn't discuss edits that were critical of him, you didn't try to improve that content; you just routinely deleted all of it. Your willingness to accept others' edits is merely an acknowledgement of reality, that the involvement now of editors who have an account makes it virtually impossible to continue your fluffing of Cunningham and your arbitrary deletions of factual information you don't happen to fancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.126 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Filmybhadaas

    The user is only here to promote Zuber K. Khan, adding unsourced promotional contents, copyvio images and not responding to paid warnings. GSS 💬 11:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was blocked for a week. If they continue to contribute un-constructive content without listening to warnings, they will most likely be banned for a further period or indefinitely. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged as potential COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akritas2

    This is a WP:SPA whose all edits are aimed to push opinions, own work and publications of Alkiviadis Akritas, who is clearly the owner of the account Akritas2. Recently, he has edited only the five articles that are listed above. In each of them he has added references to his own PhD thesis, publications and other articles (not reliably published): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

    The content added by this editor does not respect WP:NPOV, by including opinions and assertions that are not supported by most specialists of this subject. For a typical example, a paper by Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler, which has been forgotten during more than 100 years is qualified of "seminal". However, these are technical issues that are not the subject of this page.

    As Akritas2 had the same conduct in his older edits, and he has often an agressive attitude when his edits are reverted, I suggest to ban him from editing WP articles on subjects about which his has some contribution, in order that each edit that he suggests must pass through an edit request. D.Lazard (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you warned him seven years ago (!) and he replied that, more or less, he is the only authority on the subject and deserves to add his own sources. It does seem like the user has ignored COI warnings, for seven years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For being specific, the subjects of interest of Akritas2 for which an edit ban is needed are all subjects that are more or less related to polynomial greatest common divisor, real-root isolation, pseudo-remainder sequences, and (possibly) cylindrical algebraic decomposition. D.Lazard (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is last Akritas2's edit summary at Polynomial greatest common divisor: Lazard, here is the material from the Anna Johnson site, with improved references etc. I think it is very appropriate for this entry. Please feel free to modify it so that it fits with the rest of your article. Also, remove any references that seem unnecessary. Regarding COI and Talk sites I am sorry that I do not participate but I have lost (if I ever had it) the ability to use wikipedia freely. Do not feel offended.. I have reverted this edit withe the edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Akritas2: If you are able to edit articles, you must be able to read and edit yout talk page and the section that concern you in WP:COIN (follow the link). This is original research (WP:OR), and, as such, strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. I do not know how handling this further. The tone of Akritas's edit summaries may partially been explained by the fact that we met several times at scientific conferences (I remember only one case where we have talked together). D.Lazard (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint David's School (New York City)

    The user in question has been altering the "Controversy" section of the article claiming that some of the statements were "misrepresentations" and "inaccurate and inflammatory". Might be worth keeping an eye on this. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking at their changes, I do see some whitewashing, but it also looks like there's some synthesis going on here - some of the statements made were saying things in Wikipedia-voice that weren't in the sources. Article is definitely giving too much coverage to non-notable things (example: from a quick glance, nothing in "Athletics" is sourced outside of the school's website), and could use a trimming. Tagged as needing third-party sources and ref cleanup, and flagged the user as having an inappropriate username (organization names aren't permitted since they imply shared use). Will keep an eye on the article. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Ablow

    A number of newly created accounts and IP numbers keep re-inserting text that seems very PR-ish (flattering, lots of primary source content), as well as remove RS content on the controversial aspects of the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked for temporary protection at WP:RFPP and reverted the latest IP edit. RFPP is probably the first stop for IP troubles like this, but COIN is also appropriate. Next time please notify all editors mentioned above with the template, as described at the top of this page. I'll do that for you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP starting with 73... is registered to Comcast Cable in NJ. The IP starting with 2001... is registered to Telus communications in Calgary. The IP starting with 136... is registered to The University of Calgary. It seems two of the IPs are working together. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi ‎

    SPA first made some random edits to get himself autoconfirmed and then posted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi. After draftifying the article, I asked him to disclose their relationship with the subject and received these two replies (diff-diff). A week after the submission was rejected for Draft:Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi he posted Sarbat Da Bhala Charitable Trust an organisation founded by SPS Oberoi. No major edits outside these two topics except creating Avalok langer (yet another promo piece). Sound like an undisclosed paid editor who is only here to promote his clients. GSS 💬 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GSS: I had recently submitted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. It was rejected with a comment "I'm concerned about the tone showing how great the person is. Also there isn't much to explain how he became wealthy enough to be a notable philanthropist. If the accomplishments are per the Trust / organization, perhaps the article should be about the Trust?".
    I could change the tone of the article, but I don't know he became wealthy enough to become a notable philanthropist. And since the comment also raised a question that if the accomplishments are as per the Trust, perhaps the article should be about the trust, so I wrote this article about the trust.
    Mubashshir8 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mubashshir8: Apart from promoting SPS Oberoi and his organisation, what made you create Avalok langer? GSS 💬 18:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GSS: I was impressed by his book "In Pursuit of Conflict", and when that article was nominated for deletion I didn't even contest it. I just wanted to create a few articles on Wikipedia. I am writing on pregnancy pillows too, as I could find regular and orthopaedic pillows, but no article on pregnancy pillows. Maybe I am trying to create articles in a hurry, but in no way I am paid editor. Just check the article on S P Singh Oberoi, I've even mentioned a probe initiated against him for money laundering.

    And if you still feel it's a promotional article, kindly guide me on the tone. Mubashshir8 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Dando-Collins

    Their names suggest that the first three editors are in fact the author Stephen Dando-Collins. I suspect Sir Ian Richmond, named after a archeologist of the Roman Empire, is as well. He shares the subject's interests and has a pedantic knowledge of his career. Sirdandypants has supplied both photographs in the article and claims them as his own work. He has also added a quote about the subject being "the legions' foremost living historian". However, the source of this quote also states that Dando-Collins propounds a "fallacy", that his conclusions are "skimpily supported", and that "no doubt some of those interpretations will be rightly refuted (interpretations offered as conclusions - and conclusions offered without substantiation - are of course to be extra-suspected, in this work and in all works)". The selection of the quote is clearly cherry-picking. Sirdandypants also added a blurb from Amazon. And cited a laudatory blog. There is puffery throughout the article:

    • "Dando-Collins confesses to still having steam in the blood."
    • "his groundbreaking 2010 work Legions of Rome"
    • "His work has been translated into a dozen languages, and a number of his books are required reading for university history courses around the world."

    These editors seem to be using the article to promote Dando-Collins, without any regard to neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the blatant puffery from the article. There are still questions about notability, as the sourcing is particularly poor. Melcous (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Starnes

    This editor appears to be a COI. The editor also engages in legal threats and doxxing threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Older accounts (not active in the past year, but have edited since Toddstarnes3 started editing) that appear to be connected:
    A COI notice was posted to User talk:Toddstarnes in September, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. A COI notice was posted to User talk:TPDNYC in October, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. I have blocked the two accounts as sock puppets. - Donald Albury 19:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Euglena (company)

    I found this one under Euglena Co., Ltd in the new page feed, having been created by User:Simon.mangel. After having found that his Linkedin profile listed him as an intern at the company, I moved it to draft (as paid editors are required to run their articles through AfC). Subsequently, he changed his profile and pretended that I was lying, and then later admitted to it and requested deletion of the draft.

    Then, a draft of the same name was created by User:Paul Quinney (in his first edit), then it was moved to main space User:Jean-Baptiste.Ret (a new user with a series of edits that appear to be directly related to the company). I subsequently moved the article to Euglena (company), but it seems cler to me that we are dealing with a series of paid editors working at the company who are determined to create an article in main space without going through the required channels. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon.mangel and Jean-Baptiste.Ret are certainly engaged in promotional editing here. Paul Quinney and Jean-Baptiste.Ret got together here to create Draft:Euglena Co., Ltd. Your suspicions sound correct to me. A checkuser or SPI might be appropriate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened an investigation. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TheAwesomeHwyh, the diff is wrong on the SPI. I would correct it but I am not sure which one you intended.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, the diff seems fine to me. I don't know what you mean. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TheAwesomeHwyh it was pointing to Open engineering below. I fixed it. Thanks for filing the SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, Thanks for sending out the coin notices, I threw this up here right before heading off to work, so I just pinged them, but I appreciate you sending out the notices for me. TheAwesomeHwyh Thanks for filing the SPI, although my feeling is that it is equally likely that they are just different editors, all at the same company. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the problem users on the Euglena articles were blocked at SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Open Engineering Inc

    It appears that the article is predominantly written by the founder of, or an individual otherwise affiliated with, Open Engineering Inc.

    This is evident from donation sites linked on the "About" page of Open Engineering Inc's website, where the name of the individual receiving donations on behalf of Open Engineering Inc directly coincides with the username of the article's creator.

    Avigl (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bradleypallister88 / User:Bradders2019

    Keeps adding citations written by themself, or material promoting the organisation they are attached to. Repeated warnings on the user's talkpage about Conflict of Interest have gone unheeded. OsFish (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Have added new username after name move. OsFish (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OsFish thanks for this. I had not noticed the alerts at the top of the page, apologies. I will seek to rectify any articles now Bradleypallister88 12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bradleypallister88, I am curious about the blatant advertising you included in this article? we have rules against using Wikipedia for promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply, Bradley. Please note that editing to promote products and people of any kind isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Please look at rules on notability (WP:N) which describe which topics are suitable for their own article and reliable sources (WP:RS), which describe the sort of sourcing needed to support claims. Even with notability and reliable sourcing, you should avoid editing with a conflict of interest (ie adding your own work or editing material directly about yourself). OsFish (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    NikkiTAA

    This user came to my attention when I noticed a super spammy recreation of Cascade Lacrosse/Cascade (company), which was previously created by an obvious COI editor (likely it's owner.) I then came across Sam Slater (entrepreneur) and thought it was familiar only to find it was previously created by two infamous spam farms. There are also deleted contribs of this user that are recreations of other deleted content created by COI editors, indicating to me that this is likely UPE. (see Andrew S Lanoie previously created as Andrew Lanoie for example.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dammit, I patrolled the My/Mo Mochi article, of course this happens the one time I try to assume good faith and tag issues instead of just tagging for speedy deletion... creffett (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Surinder Amarnath

    User is holding himself out as the son of the article subject. He has requested that the article be edited, particularly by including quotations by cricket commentators about the subject's style of play; multiple editors, including myself, rejected the changes as being too flowery and not following the MOS. User is continuing to complain that there is bias in the treatment of that particular article.[12] I would like additional eyes involved in the situation and some kind voices to help explain what Wikipedia is and what it is not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Borderland Beat

    Hello. I want to improve the article about a Mexican Drug War blog known as Borderland Beat. However, I want to make it known to everyone that there might be a potential COI on my part. I'm a member of that community and have written a few articles for the blog (I'm a blogger there, I don't hold any admin powers). I specialize in Mexican drug cartels here on Wikipedia. It is a topic I've studied for over a decade, hence my involvement in this other online community too. I've never used articles I've written in Borderland Beat as sources on Wikipedia (most of the articles I write there are actually excerpts from the Wikipedia articles I create, like this one and this one, which are from these Wikipedia articles: Zeferino Peña Cuéllar and Raúl Alberto Trejo Benavides). And as far as I can recall, I've only used Borderland Beat as a source once (for Héctor David Delgado Santiago).

    I'd like the improve the Borderland Beat article. I realize that my situation could be similar to a Wikipedian writing about their hometown, favorite sport, etc. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MX, thanks for letting us know. Since you have a conflict of interest, I'd recommend having a look at the plain and simple conflict of interest guideline. In short: declare it on your userpage and (out of an abundance of caution) use the {{edit request}} template rather than making changes to the article yourself. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MX, I second creffpublic's advice. Also, your disclosure was classy and appreciated. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Border Patrol Foundation

    An IP number is scrubbing RS content and adding flattering unsourced text. Obvious COI account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BullRangifer

    Dealt with more than ten years ago. Nothing to see here -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In 2015 this user's position as the listmaster for Stephen Barrett*/* (who runs "Quackwatch") was discussed here.

    SandyGeorgia said I agree with SlimVirgin that it appears difficult to argue that you don't have a COI, or at minimum a strong bias, in this area, which is why I believe it would be beneficial for you to not dominate the discussion with dubious assertions of fact.

    Should there be some formal restriction on his activity around Quackwatch on WP? There was unfortunately no response to Sandy's recommendation in 2015. He appears to be "dominating" this RfC regarding Quackwatch presently. petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There does not seem to be any evidence of misconduct other than OP disliking his activity in the area; digging up something 15 years ago is not evidence of an active COI. I find it concerning that an editor topic-banned from GMOs for casting aspersions at other editors would propose this. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This matter has already been covered and settled more than once. Even an ArbCom case did not find that I had a COI, but to avoid the appearance of a COI I was advised to be cautious. The last time this issue was raised is recently at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scientific and legal advisors. Near the bottom of that section you will find the start at these words: "BullRangifer has stated on his talk page ..." Please read that and then close this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knuteson

    Knuteson appears to be the author of the book Conspiracy Theory: A Philosophical Defense[13] He dodged the question on his talk page[14] but pretty much admitted it on Talk:Conspiracy theory [15]

    I gave him the standard COI warning[16] but he continues to edit in the area where he has a COI.

    I considered going straight to ANI wit this, but in the interest of fairness and because I might be wrong, I decided to bring this up here and notify Knuteson using the standard template so that he can respond, either by clarifying the he is not the author or by making a commitment to following our Conflict of Interest rules.

    Okay, I hereby commit to following the Conflict of Interest rules. But let me be clear: I have not “admitted” to anything. I objected to the very effort to reveal my identity. The implicit argument seems to be that this effort is legitimized by a potential conflict of interest. But, I submit, anyone who would suggest that the philosophy of conspiracy theories page is an inappropriate advertisement for the book in question, or anything else, has lost all sense of proportion. Such a person is likely driven by some other motive. First a plausible case must be made that an inappropriate interest is being served, only then can COI even be a possible issue. Perhaps the issue that really ought to be considered is harassment.

    Any advice from the regulars here would be most welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ON what evidence do you base the COI?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that would depend on who published it, but would still not override a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • GreenMeansGo, not in this case, as he is promoting a fringe view of conspiracy theories and citing his own work in articles, including creating a POVfork to represent his view against the consensus we painfully thrashed out at the parent article over many months. Guy (help!) 12:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well I certainly don't think that every person who is qualified enough to publish on a subject necessarily has a COI. Neither does anyone who does or has worked in a field necessarily have a COI. Draw that line and you eliminate half the Military History WikiProject, myself included. If they are using their contributions on Wikipedia to try to advertise their book, then yes, that's a COI. But if they're just interested in the subject area, and good enough in the subject area that they get paid to teach about it, that's just having an area of interest, not a conflict of interest. GMGtalk 12:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the article should exist is a matter for AfD, not COIN, and seems to have already been settled for the moment. Whether they are unduly promoting their book, that is a matter that is germane to COIN, and it doesn't look like anyone has provided diffs to that effect. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well for one the article is named after his book "Philosophy of conspiracy theories" yet seems to actually be about the definition of conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Named after his book? That's a bit of a stretch. Including a few of the same words doesn't exactly count as "named after". GMGtalk 14:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=927597265"